Has someone threatened to leak your private video or intimate photos unless you do what they say? That is not just harassment, it is a serious criminal offence in India, and a 2026 Supreme Court ruling has made the law even clearer.
Quick answer: Yes. Threatening to upload or leak a woman's private or intimate video is a crime under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, now Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. Because it threatens her reputation and dignity, it falls in the aggravated category, which is punishable with jail up to seven years.
Is it still a crime if…?
| Offence | Old law | New law | Maximum jail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simple criminal intimidation | Section 506 IPC, Part I | BNS Section 351(2) | Up to 2 years, or fine, or both |
| Aggravated, includes threat to a woman's reputation or unchastity | Section 506 IPC, Part II | BNS Section 351(3) | Up to 7 years, or fine, or both |
| Threat by anonymous or concealed identity | Not a separate slab | BNS Section 351(4) | Adds up to 2 more years |
A fine can also be imposed, for example a penalty running into thousands of Rupee alongside the jail term, at the court's discretion.
The law calls this offence criminal intimidation. It means threatening another person with injury to their body, reputation or property, in order to alarm them or force them to do something they are not legally bound to do.
When the threat is aimed at a woman's reputation, for example a threat to spread her intimate images or to impute unchastity to her, the law treats it as the more serious, aggravated form of the offence. That is why the punishment jumps from a maximum of two years to a maximum of seven years.
Crucially, the offence is the threat itself. You do not have to wait for the video to be leaked. The crime is complete the moment the accused makes the threat with the intent to alarm or coerce.
The statute. Under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, criminal intimidation is punishable in two parts. Part I covers ordinary threats and carries jail up to two years. Part II covers aggravated threats, including a threat to impute unchastity to a woman, and carries jail up to seven years. From 1 July 2024, the IPC was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The same offence now sits in Section 351 BNS, where sub-section (2) is the basic form and sub-section (3) is the aggravated form with the seven year ceiling. The BNS also expressly covers threats sent through electronic communication.
The 2026 Supreme Court ruling. In Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 INSC 525, decided on 22 May 2026, a two judge bench of the Supreme Court, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, who authored the judgment, and Justice Sanjay Karol, settled three important points:
This ruling matters because it strips away the old idea that a woman's honour is about “purity” and instead protects her privacy, dignity and control over her own images.
For the full step by step process of filing a complaint when intimate images are shared or threatened, see our detailed revenge porn complaint guide. This page is the legal-rule explainer, that page is the how-to-file walkthrough.
If a public authority such as the police or a cyber cell is sitting on your complaint, an RTI request can force them to disclose the status and action taken. Draft one in minutes with the AI RTI draft tool, and if the reply is late or evasive, escalate using the first appeal tool and check any reply with the PIO reply checker. For deeper strategy on using information law to hold offices accountable, read The RTI Playbook.
A real-life style example
Kashvi Pathak, a college student, received a message from an ex classmate. He claimed to have a private video and said he would post it on Instagram unless she sent him money. She never saw any actual video, and he had not uploaded anything.
Under the law explained above, his messages were already a completed offence. The threat to leak her intimate images, aimed at her reputation, is aggravated criminal intimidation under Part II of Section 506 IPC, now Section 351(3) BNS, punishable with jail up to seven years. Following the 2026 Supreme Court ruling, the fact that no video was ever recovered from him would not save him if her screenshots and testimony credibly prove the threat. Kashvi saved every message, filed an FIR and reported on the cyber crime portal.
Yes. The offence is criminal intimidation, and it is complete the moment the threat is made with intent to alarm or coerce. The actual leak does not need to happen.
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and from 1 July 2024, Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. A threat to a woman's reputation or to impute unchastity falls in the aggravated slab, Section 351(3) BNS.
For the aggravated form, which includes threatening to leak a woman's intimate images, the maximum is seven years in jail, or a fine, or both.
That argument fails after Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 INSC 525. The Supreme Court held that non-recovery of the video is not fatal to conviction if other credible evidence, such as messages and testimony, proves the threat and the video existed.
No. Being or having been in a relationship does not give anyone the right to leak your private videos. The Supreme Court has framed the law around your control over your own sexual choices and privacy, so consent to a relationship is not consent to expose your intimate images.
It confirmed that a threat to upload an intimate video is aggravated criminal intimidation, that non-recovery of the video does not defeat the case, and it reframed chastity as a woman's sexual autonomy and dignity rather than old ideas of purity.
Yes. Criminal intimidation protects any person threatened over their reputation or property. The specific “unchastity” language protects women, but threats to leak anyone's private content can attract criminal intimidation and other cyber and privacy offences.
Yes. If a police station or cyber cell delays action on your complaint, an RTI request can compel them to reveal the status and steps taken, which often speeds things up.